On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 01:19:54AM -0400, Anish Patil wrote:
On fedora 17, system-config-language sets attributes LANG,SYSFONT in
/etc/sysconfig/i18n file.
Fedora 18, i checked the locale.conf file which has only one attribute i.e
LANG.
I would like to know where SYSFONT attribute is set
Le 01/11/2012 18:25, Jason L Tibbitts III a écrit :
It would have been super nice to actually include a link in all of those
bugs, or some reference. I mean, they must have been filed by program,
so it's not as if you would have had to do a bunch of extra typing.
We really need a mass bug
Le 01/11/2012 18:25, Jason L Tibbitts III a écrit :
It would have been super nice to actually include a link in all of those
bugs, or some reference. I mean, they must have been filed by program,
so it's not as if you would have had to do a bunch of extra typing.
No, nothing automatic here.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Le 30/10/2012 15:14, Remi Collet a écrit :
So I open a tracker bug for this issues
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871373
Finally : 60 open bugs.
Thanks
Hi Miroslav,
It sounds like you are missing f18 branch while creating new build
Thx for the new spacewalk release!
Nicolas (kwizart)
2012/11/2 Miroslav Suchý msu...@fedoraproject.org
The unsigned tag 'rhn-client-tools-1.8.26-1.fc19' was created.
Tagger: Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com
Quoting Michael Cronenworth (2012-11-01 18:33:24)
Adam Williamson wrote:
I didn't want to throw this grenade into the debate, but now someone
else has, I'll just note that I was in favour of this before and I'm
still in favour of it now. :) Rolling release is a model that makes
clear
On 11/01/2012 05:25 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
It would have been super nice to actually include a link in all of those
bugs, or some reference. I mean, they must have been filed by program,
so it's not as if you would have had to do a bunch of extra typing.
Most of us do this actually
On 1 November 2012 17:33, Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
I didn't want to throw this grenade into the debate, but now someone
else has, I'll just note that I was in favour of this before and I'm
still in favour of it now. :) Rolling release is a model that
On 11/02/2012 10:55 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
Quoting Michael Cronenworth (2012-11-01 18:33:24)
Adam Williamson wrote:
I didn't want to throw this grenade into the debate, but now someone
else has, I'll just note that I was in favour of this before and I'm
still in favour of it now. :)
On 11/01/2012 06:25 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
It would have been super nice to actually include a link in all of those
bugs, or some reference. I mean, they must have been filed by program,
so it's not as if you would have had to do a bunch of extra typing.
We really need a mass bug
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
johan...@gmail.com wrote:
Trust me when I say this we have to fix other processes we have *before* we
can properly fix the feature process.
Which?
Until that is done there is no point in trying to fix the feature process.
I disagree.
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 11:55:37AM +0100, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
I recently came up with similar 3-layer idea. My description was a bit
different, something like this:
1. level - rawhide-like repository, more or less anything goes
2. level - package moves here after maintainer says this
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Tree-DAG_Node:
1d12c1cb72a71edfdaab1b08a8f2e354 Tree-DAG_Node-1.07.tgz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Ian Malone wrote:
How does this work with things like Anaconda? In a rolling model
(assuming you can do other major upgrades without reinstalling, if not
there's less point anyway), people aren't going to be reinstalling so
it could easily trickle through to stable before getting serious use.
Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni...@redhat.com writes:
Quoting Michael Cronenworth (2012-11-01 18:33:24)
I've wanted to write up a blog post about my plan for a rolling release,
but I'll post a snip-it here.
I recently came up with similar 3-layer idea.
In my little corner of the system, the
RC == Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com writes:
RC Have you notice than all this bugs depend on #871373 which provides
RC some useful information ?
The useful information was not in the ticket. Which means it wasn't in
the email. Which means I had to get over to a web browser, wait for
commit aa8cdcff3aeb24f317ed1ba3dfecdf7d02f6a324
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Fri Nov 2 15:42:22 2012 +0100
Correct dependencies
perl-String-CRC32.spec | 10 +-
1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-String-CRC32.spec
On 11/02/2012 01:20 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
johan...@gmail.com wrote:
Trust me when I say this we have to fix other processes we have *before* we
can properly fix the feature process.
Which?
As soon as an feature depends on other components
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 02:52:46PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
As soon as an feature depends on other components or several other
components and their maintainers involvement/participation, then for
example the unresponsive maintainers policy conflicts with the
feature process given
On 11/02/2012 02:58 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 02:52:46PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
As soon as an feature depends on other components or several other
components and their maintainers involvement/participation, then for
example the unresponsive maintainers
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 03:12:56PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
As soon as an feature depends on other components or several other
components and their maintainers involvement/participation, then for
example the unresponsive maintainers policy conflicts with the
feature process given
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872158
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
perl-DateTime-TimeZone-1.52-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora
16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-DateTime-TimeZone-1.52-1.fc16
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872158
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
perl-DateTime-TimeZone-1.52-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora
18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-DateTime-TimeZone-1.52-1.fc18
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872158
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
perl-DateTime-TimeZone-1.52-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora
17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-DateTime-TimeZone-1.52-1.fc17
--
You are
On 11/02/2012 03:32 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 03:12:56PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
As soon as an feature depends on other components or several other
components and their maintainers involvement/participation, then for
example the unresponsive maintainers
=?UTF-8?B?IkrDs2hhbm4gQi4gR3XDsG11bmRzc29uIg==?= johan...@gmail.com writes:
On 11/02/2012 03:32 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 03:12:56PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Dead/un-maintained packages need to be removed/reassigned at the
very *beginning* of an new
On 11/02/2012 04:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
=?UTF-8?B?IkrDs2hhbm4gQi4gR3XDsG11bmRzc29uIg==?= johan...@gmail.com writes:
On 11/02/2012 03:32 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 03:12:56PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Dead/un-maintained packages need to be removed/reassigned
On Sex, 2012-11-02 at 02:53 +, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Qui, 2012-11-01 at 19:14 -0700, Benjamin De Kosnik wrote:
Using F18 TC6 in a KVM install, I was able to install texlive-2012 as
per the updates-testing packages, and look at the state of generating
documenation with DocBook
=?UTF-8?B?IkrDs2hhbm4gQi4gR3XDsG11bmRzc29uIg==?= johan...@gmail.com writes:
On 11/02/2012 04:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
How exactly are you going to force maintainers who go missing to do so
at a prescheduled time? Real life is seldom that convenient.
bash script + a cron job should suffice to
On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 16:44:06 +
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/02/2012 04:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
=?UTF-8?B?IkrDs2hhbm4gQi4gR3XDsG11bmRzc29uIg==?=
johan...@gmail.com writes:
On 11/02/2012 03:32 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 03:12:56PM +,
Indeed. If someone owns 4 packages that are all stable and have no bug
reports, are they inactive?
-J
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Tom Lane t...@redhat.com wrote:
=?UTF-8?B?IkrDs2hhbm4gQi4gR3XDsG11bmRzc29uIg==?= johan...@gmail.com
writes:
On 11/02/2012 04:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
How
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-App-Daemon:
0496db44622acb4478ef4bfc6be0d6e5 App-Daemon-0.18.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 11/02/2012 04:56 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 16:44:06 +
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/02/2012 04:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
=?UTF-8?B?IkrDs2hhbm4gQi4gR3XDsG11bmRzc29uIg==?=
johan...@gmail.com writes:
On 11/02/2012 03:32 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On
commit 46ee9ac74ade858edbf0782a09ebceef424eb6ac
Author: Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Nov 2 12:04:45 2012 -0600
update to latest upstream version
.gitignore|1 +
perl-Catalyst-Manual.spec |7 +--
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 7
commit 8ad2fd6c91fc8892254a13655da255971a4c812e
Author: Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Nov 2 12:04:55 2012 -0600
drop old test sub-package obsoletes/provides
perl-Catalyst-Manual.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
---
diff --git
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 17:57:57 +,
\Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\ johan...@gmail.com wrote:
Surely if an individual has not logged into for several months into
our infrastructure he must be inactive no?
Not necessarily. You can watch things without having to login to
infrastructure. Unless
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 11/02/2012 04:56 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 16:44:06 +
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/02/2012 04:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Getopt-Long-Descriptive:
3610685889c885f13fe3f4ed1360e078 Getopt-Long-Descriptive-0.093.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 11/02/2012 04:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
How exactly are you going to force maintainers who go missing to do so
at a prescheduled time? Real life is seldom that convenient.
bash script + a cron job should suffice to achieve just that.
Somehow, we are failing to communicate.
We would not
On 11/02/2012 06:05 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
No, they might simply have had nothing to do. Sometimes applications
are stable, have no releases, and have no bugs files against them.
sigh
Then those individuals would simply respond to the email that that was
the case and they are still alive
- Original Message -
From: Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, November 2, 2012 7:57:57 PM
Subject: Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process
On 11/02/2012 04:56 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 16:44:06
* Jóhann B. Guðmundsson [02/11/2012 18:59] :
If at this point we dont have any process that can actively tell if
a maintainer is present and active within the project then we have
bigger fish to fry then the feature process...
This really does not matter. We've had maintainers that were AWOL
Several months ago I attempted to upgrade libffi 3.0.10 to 3.0.11. The change
was reverted because the soname change in this version of the library broke the
build environment. I would still like to get 3.0.11 in Fedora. I don't
anticipate any future ABI-breaking changes, and 3.0.12 will
The lightweight tag 'perl-Module-Signature-0.69-1.fc18' was created pointing to:
a5b4aff... Update to 0.69
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
The lightweight tag 'perl-Module-Signature-0.69-1.fc19' was created pointing to:
a5b4aff... Update to 0.69
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 11/02/2012 06:27 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
Wrong. Do you know how few of the problems we see in Eclipse land don't need
fixes upstreams? And some of these issues require man/months (years sometimes)
upstream before there is smth to show in Fedora. Don't make your assumptions
based on
On 11/02/2012 06:56 PM, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
If a package is unmaintained, send out a call to co-maintain to devel@ and open
up its ACLs.
That package would hardly be un-maintained if it has co-maintainers now
does it...
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 11:55 +0100, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
Quoting Michael Cronenworth (2012-11-01 18:33:24)
Adam Williamson wrote:
I didn't want to throw this grenade into the debate, but now someone
else has, I'll just note that I was in favour of this before and I'm
still in
On 11/2/12 3:18 PM, Anthony Green wrote:
Several months ago I attempted to upgrade libffi 3.0.10 to 3.0.11.
The change was reverted because the soname change in this version of
the library broke the build environment. I would still like to get
3.0.11 in Fedora. I don't anticipate any future
Well your point basically is we can't/don't ship anything that is
stable so we should give up on that.
I disagree with that. Fedora releases had some small regression
introduced via updates from time but is is *very* usable as a stable
operating system.
Compare it to always cutting edge like
Hi,
Do current anaconda problems will have an impact on preupgrade?
--
Best regards,
Michal
http://eventhorizon.pl/
https://getactive.pl/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 21:07 +0100, drago01 wrote:
Well your point basically is we can't/don't ship anything that is
stable so we should give up on that.
More or less, yes.
I disagree with that. Fedora releases had some small regression
introduced via updates from time but is is *very* usable
Once upon a time, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com said:
Surely if an individual has not logged into for several months into our
infrastructure he must be inactive no?
I maintain just a couple of low-overhead packages, and I haven't changed
either in a couple of years. The only time
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 16:04 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
It looks like libffi is emitted into the minimal buildroot (rpm-build -
pkg-config - glib2 - libffi), so during the transition we'll need to
build both sonames of libffi. It might be worth keeping a compat-libffi
around for a release
Michał Piotrowski (mkkp...@gmail.com) said:
Do current anaconda problems will have an impact on preupgrade?
preupgrade is not the current supported upgrade tool to upgrade to Fedora 18.
So the simple answer to your question is 'yes', although not exactly for the
reasons you expect.
Colin Walters (walt...@verbum.org) said:
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 16:04 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
It looks like libffi is emitted into the minimal buildroot (rpm-build -
pkg-config - glib2 - libffi), so during the transition we'll need to
build both sonames of libffi. It might be worth
On 11/02/2012 07:56 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Anyway, we've rather torpedo'ed the feature process discussion now, and
I'm sorry about that :/. Hence the topic change. But while we're blue
sky thinking about massive release process changes, I think it's worth
keeping a firm grasp on what Fedora
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com writes:
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 21:07 +0100, drago01 wrote:
I disagree with that. Fedora releases had some small regression
introduced via updates from time but is is *very* usable as a stable
operating system.
I disagree. It's usable by the kind of people
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Tom Lane t...@redhat.com wrote:
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com writes:
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 21:07 +0100, drago01 wrote:
I disagree with that. Fedora releases had some small regression
introduced via updates from time but is is *very* usable as a stable
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 17:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com writes:
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 21:07 +0100, drago01 wrote:
I disagree with that. Fedora releases had some small regression
introduced via updates from time but is is *very* usable as a stable
operating
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 04:49:01PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Colin Walters (walt...@verbum.org) said:
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 16:04 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
It looks like libffi is emitted into the minimal buildroot (rpm-build -
pkg-config - glib2 - libffi), so during the
Am 02.11.2012 17:25, schrieb Tom Lane:
=?UTF-8?B?IkrDs2hhbm4gQi4gR3XDsG11bmRzc29uIg==?= johan...@gmail.com writes:
On 11/02/2012 03:32 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 03:12:56PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Dead/un-maintained packages need to be removed/reassigned
Am 02.11.2012 22:53, schrieb Tom Lane:
Abandoning any pretense of having stable releases will eliminate a huge
fraction of the user community. For sure it will eliminate *me*. I'm
not in the business of fighting OS bugs every single day, and I will not
be forced into that business. I have
On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:17:02 -0700
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
..snip...
If you're using a Fedora release today you're _already_ fighting OS
bugs more often than most people do, I'd say. I disagree with drago's
assertion that my description was of people who use Rawhide. It was
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com writes:
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 17:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I've seen a whole lot of user demand for *more* stable versions of
Fedora. I've seen none whatever for less stable versions.
Perhaps I ought to be more clear. I think we can maintain the level of
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
If you're using a Fedora release today you're _already_ fighting OS bugs
more often than most people do, I'd say. I disagree with drago's
assertion that my description was of people who use Rawhide. It was not
intended
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 13:22 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 21:07 +0100, drago01 wrote:
Well your point basically is we can't/don't ship anything that is
stable so we should give up on that.
More or less, yes.
I disagree with that. Fedora releases had some small
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 16:31 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:17:02 -0700
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
..snip...
If you're using a Fedora release today you're _already_ fighting OS
bugs more often than most people do, I'd say. I disagree with drago's
On 11/01/2012 04:21 PM, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 09:08:36 -0600
Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com wrote:
Some MPI updates:
- I built openmpi 1.6.3 in rawhide yesterday. This had an unexpected
bump in the libmpi_f90.so soname. I know this affects hdf5 and
netcdf-fortran,
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
[...]
* Upgrading every year, with an unreliable upgrade process, is not
something you have to do with a proper stable OS
I am not sure why you call it unreliable ... I *never* reinstall
unless I really had to (moving
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 16:04 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
My fundamental argument is there's a bit of a
disconnect between our release process - which is sort of aping the way
a stable general-purpose OS would be released, but on fast-forward and
with far fewer resources - and our actual
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 16:04 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 16:31 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:17:02 -0700
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
..snip...
If you're using a Fedora release today you're _already_ fighting OS
bugs more
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 00:18 +0100, drago01 wrote:
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
[...]
* Upgrading every year, with an unreliable upgrade process, is not
something you have to do with a proper stable OS
I am not sure why you call it unreliable
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 00:18 +0100, drago01 wrote:
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
[...]
* Upgrading every year, with an unreliable upgrade process, is not
something you have to do with a proper stable OS
I am not sure why you call it unreliable
Hi,
2012/11/3 Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com:
Note
that neither Red Hat nor Microsoft actually support major version
upgrades for their operating systems
Just take a look at this - MS rocks here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPnehDhGa14
--
Best regards,
Michal
http://eventhorizon.pl/
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:32 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 00:18 +0100, drago01 wrote:
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
[...]
* Upgrading every year, with an unreliable upgrade process, is not
something you
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 00:44 +0100, drago01 wrote:
The number of variables involved in one is astronomical. Note
that neither Red Hat nor Microsoft actually support major version
upgrades for their operating systems,
Microsoft does. They do even sell upgrade boxes ...
Well, it's a bit
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 01:07 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 03.11.2012 00:58, schrieb Adam Williamson:
Microsoft don't really expect you to upgrade Windows. They expect you to
buy a computer with Windows X on it, use it for three years, then throw
it away and buy a new computer with Windows
Am 03.11.2012 00:58, schrieb Adam Williamson:
Microsoft don't really expect you to upgrade Windows. They expect you to
buy a computer with Windows X on it, use it for three years, then throw
it away and buy a new computer with Windows Y on it. Red Hat expects
something similar for RHEL - they
On 11/02/2012 04:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com writes:
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 21:07 +0100, drago01 wrote:
I disagree with that. Fedora releases had some small regression
introduced via updates from time but is is *very* usable as a stable
operating system.
I
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 03:23:48PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
And has been since August. Development starts when rawhide and F-next
branch.
We need some way to put this in bigger letters.
--
Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ mat...@fedoraproject.org
--
devel mailing list
On 2 November 2012 17:36, Michał Piotrowski mkkp...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
2012/11/3 Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com:
Note
that neither Red Hat nor Microsoft actually support major version
upgrades for their operating systems
Just take a look at this - MS rocks here
As per the Fedora 18 schedule [1], Fedora 18 Beta Test Compose 7 (TC7)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5349#comment:19
. Please see the following pages for download links (including delta
ISOs) and
Hello,
I am looking for a sponsor.
I am Canadian, I know French, English, and many programming languages. I use
Fedora 17 on
my Lenovo Thinkpad x230 and I have started using Linux in 2003 on a Red Hat 9
installation.
Over the years, I have used: Slackware, Ubuntu, Gentoo, Fedora, CentOS,
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
well, it would maybe a start to DROP packages which are still
missing systemd-units
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/18/FeatureList
60%
SysV to Systemd
Dropping 40% of packages isn't going to happen. Sorry
Rahul
--
devel
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-NOCpulse-Gritch:
1e217cdf6063edef46970ea9f4757caa perl-NOCpulse-Gritch-1.27.11.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
commit 2820f810da14310f740f384d2e8796504741f5cc
Author: Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com
Date: Fri Nov 2 11:37:01 2012 +0100
Rebase to perl-NOCpulse-Gritch-1.27.11-1.fc17 in rawhide.
.gitignore|1 +
perl-NOCpulse-Gritch.spec | 27 ---
sources
The unsigned tag 'perl-NOCpulse-Gritch-1.27.11-1.fc19' was created.
Tagger: Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com
Date: Fri Nov 2 11:37:26 2012 +0100
636211 - Mail::Send does not handle From as special case, need to set with
set.
- %defattr is not needed since rpm 4.4
Changes
commit 3a21757e998045d6697c89204e08184b48d39dea
Author: Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Nov 2 06:21:49 2012 -0600
update to latest upstream version - Olson 2012h
.gitignore |1 +
perl-DateTime-TimeZone.spec |5 -
sources |2 +-
Summary of changes:
3a21757... update to latest upstream version - Olson 2012h (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Summary of changes:
3a21757... update to latest upstream version - Olson 2012h (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Summary of changes:
3a21757... update to latest upstream version - Olson 2012h (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
perl-OpenOffice-UNO has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
On x86_64:
perl-OpenOffice-UNO-0.07-3.fc17.x86_64 requires
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.2)
On i386:
perl-OpenOffice-UNO-0.07-3.fc17.i686 requires
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.2)
commit 54608ae7e85c6bddc25e78866fcd5b23a0afebfb
Author: Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com
Date: Fri Nov 2 14:22:30 2012 +0100
Add BR perl(Exporter).
Signed-off-by: Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com
perl-Crypt-PasswdMD5.spec |6 +-
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+),
commit b42861d1acaa89dfc5d69c15cda533937f5330a5
Author: Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org
Date: Fri Nov 2 13:46:12 2012 +
Update to 1.07
- New upstream release 1.07
- New maintainer: Ron Savage
- Pre-emptive apologies for any changes which are not back-compatible; no
The lightweight tag 'perl-Tree-DAG_Node-1.07-1.fc19' was created pointing to:
b42861d... Update to 1.07
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
commit 5d448aa4a3ab8e44486cda10c0abf52b1336502a
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Fri Nov 2 14:57:26 2012 +0100
Correct dependencies
perl-SQL-Statement.spec | 13 ++---
1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-SQL-Statement.spec
Summary of changes:
886cfc6... update to 1.06 (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872616
Bug ID: 872616
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: unspecified
Version: rawhide
Priority: unspecified
CC:
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-ZMQ-Constants:
89e61e2b720af64ff0b153de870dc12c ZMQ-Constants-1.01.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
